• Gunung Padang: Last Open Letter to Danny Hilman

    Well, Danny:

    Older than Egypt! Greater than Giza! In November 2011, the organizer of the Ancient Catastrophe Team, Andi Arief, announced to the world you had found an immense and immensely ancient pyramid inside a mountain in West Java. The evidence was impeccably scientific, including radiocarbon dates and all manner of resistivity and seismic and magnetic remote sensing. You presented the evidence yourself in February 2012, at meetings in Jakarta and Bali, affirming in front of no less a scholar than Stephen Oppenheimer that the mountain was artificial. Gunung Padang for the win!

    Except, the mountain in question was not Gunung Padang. It was G. Sadahurip, and it was only one of several pyramid-shaped hills for which similar claims were made: Lalakon, Putri, Kaledong, Haruman, up to eighteen altogether including G. Padang. What happened to all those other pyramids, Danny? I should have thought you’d be presenting them proudly as further evidence of your advanced pre-Holocene civilization, and yet—as far as I could find—they vanished from your narrative not long after those announcements were made. Why did Gunung Padang suddenly become an only child?

    Well, it helps to look at some recent history. Your account of the discovery of Gunung Padang, as also retailed by Graham Hancock and Co, implies that you stumbled on your great discovery in the course of other research—that you were not looking for an ancient civilization, and were rather surprised when you found one. But let’s go back a bit, and look at the context.

    Somewhere around 2008 or 2009, while you were doing valuable work mapping seismic faults in West Java, two books were translated into Bahasa and caught the public imagination: Stephen Oppenheimer’s Eden in the East: The Drowned Continent of Southeast Asia, first published in 1999; and the late Arysio dos Santos’ Atlantis: The Lost Continent Finally Found, first published in 2005. Both posit huge importance for pre-Holocene Indonesia. Oppenheimer’s thesis is a respectable (though minority) alternative to the Out-of-Taiwan hypothesis, whereby Asia was peopled northward from Sundaland rather than southward from Taiwan. Santos’ tome is a cranky masterpiece of pseudoscholarship that places Plato’s Atlantis in Sundaland, a fabulous advanced civilization destroyed when an eruption of Krakatau breached the Java Strait and flooded the lowlands among the present islands. The books’ effect, it seems, was a great boost to the national ego, reverberating right up into the presidential palace.

    In October 2010, Oppenheimer and Santos’ disciple, Frank Joseph Hoff, were invited by the Indonesian government to the “International Conference on Nature, Philosophy, and Culture on Ancient Sunda Civilization,” with the stated goal of raising awareness of the glories of the past—the Tarumanagara kingdom and the lost Atlantis in Sundaland—towards  cultural development of the nation on the local, national, and global levels. (I’m paraphrasing; Google Translator is not a great stylist.) Some skeptical Indonesian scholars went on record debunking Santos’s Atlantis arguments, but the chairman of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) said that LIPI would support research on the matter, as a means to finding the truth at a time when Santos’ theory would turn the eyes of the world to Indonesia. In fact, Oppenheimer was invited to LIPI to discuss his book after the conference was finished. And LIPI was where you worked, Danny. I think it’s safe to say you were aware of the public interest and pride in the Indonesian Atlantis theory.

    One group in particular took a special interest in the Sundaland-Atlantis theory. This was Turangga Seta, an organization founded in 2004 to explore and revive the glories of Indonesia’s legendary past. In fact, they regard the legends of the past as history rather than myth, and set out to show that Indonesia—Nuswantara—was the seat of an advanced civilization and the dominant global power thousands of years ago. Furthermore, the ancient Nuswantarans are still around and still doing stuff with their highly advanced technology, including camouflaging themselves and their ancient terrestrial structures. Their weirdness goes beyond the scope of this narrative, but interested readers could check out their website and youtube channel. At any rate, Turangga Seta was over the moon about Oppenheimer and Santos, and determined to help find relics of the lost civilization. Their technique was to locate the ancient sites by paranormal means, basically by channelling the ancient ones and asking them where they’d left their stuff, and following up with on-site investigations. The sites they got most excited about in late 2010 were G. Lalakon, G. Sadahurip, and G. Panang—and not just because these sites concealed traces of Nuswantara/Atlantis, but because they hid vast treasures in gold.

    Turangga Seta’s version of Gunung Lalakon

    Here is where the timeline get a little confused. As far as I can tell, Danny, you and your colleagues were out doing remote sensing at Sadahurip, Lalakon, and some other sites under LIPI auspices in early 2011, around the same time as the Turangga Seta teams were investigating at least the first two. I notice you were quite careful to keep your name from being associated with theirs, but your teammate Andang Bachtiar worked with them at Lalakon and Sadahurip, and LIPI’s remote sensing data were used by Turangga Seta to confirm their metaphysical “data.” Their findings, such as they were, were presented to the governor of West Java in March 2011, and to the ITB Mining Department in May. Pyramids, pyramids everywhere.

    Enter Tim Katastropik Purba (TPK), the Ancient Catastrophes Team, pulled together by the Presidential Special Advisor on Disasters and Social Assistance, Andi Arief, and headed by you, Danny. The stated aim was to investigate the link between ancient disasters and ancient civilizations, which sounded laudable to me the first time I read it—but I think now this was a euphemism for searching for Atlantis in Sundaland without actually mentioning Atlantis. Though your reluctance to use the A-word didn’t last forever. Through the latter part of 2011 and into 2012, you and your team confirmed Gunung Sadahurip and Gunung Padang as monumental ancient structures rather than hills.

    But there were two sets of dissenting voices. Turangga Seta was not happy; a press release from their attorneys, dated 28 July 2011, complained that LIPI had simply poached the pyramids that they, Turangga Seta, had discovered in late 2010. Geologists and archaeologists outside the Ancient Catastrophes Team pointed out that the hills were naturally formed, and the notion of an advanced pre-Holocene civilization did not fit with the well-evidenced cultural chronology of Indonesia.

    Over the next couple of years, as your claims narrowed down to Gunung Padang, and the claims for GunungPadang inflated like a hot-air balloon, you became the darling of the Alternative Archaeology crowd, Lost Civilization Department. With the prestige of the presidential connection through Andi Arief, the TKP (which became the TTRM, or Integrated Independent Research Team, in May 2012) you brushed off all criticism as springing from the hidebound orthodoxy of mainstream scholars. This, by the way, is a prime red flag for pseudoscholarship. The efforts of your detractors to stop you destroying the acknowledged archaeological site in favour of your fictional site, including a daft scheme to bring in five hundred untrained volunteers to excavate, were presented as a kind of censorship. I did construct a detailed timeline of the struggle, but it is beyond the scope of this article, and boring as hell besides.

    It all culminated in October 2014, when your activities at Padang were summarily shut down, and a new body was formed to replace the TTRM:

    The Ministry of Education and Culture launched the National Team of Research and Management of Gunung Padang Site. This policy is expected to neutralize the feud between the researchers related to Gunung Padang Site. [It will be] chaired by the Director of Cultural Heritage Preservation and Museum of Ministry of Education and Culture, Harry Widianto. The team consists of 47 experts from various disciplines, such as archeology, geology, architects, and building techniques. Several members of the Independent Research Integrated Team (TTRM), such as Danny Hilman and Ali Akbar, were also included in the team…Harry said, “We hope that the research at Gunung Padang can be expressed in a more comprehensive form because it has been [marked by] chaos and arrogance from certain researchers.

    Since that shotgun marriage between you and forty-odd experts who maintain that the site is a hill, research has stopped at G.Padang. Certain trends, though, have accelerated. One is the damage to the site wrought by the huge influx of visitors eager to see the supposed remains of an Atlantean wonder. Another is the money trail, the gleeful plans for touristic development, a train service, resorts and hotels, and so forth. From the sound of it, G. Padang could bring in millions, if not billions.

    Third, there is your deepening immersion in the fraternity of pseudoarchaeologists, as evidenced, say, by your recent illuminating performance on Andrew Fisher’s Nature of Reality podcast. Honestly, Danny. Complex societies of the sort you envision are messy as hell—they leave tangible, unmistakeable traces, none of which show up in pre-Holocene Indonesia. You speak of agriculture—but what do you imagine your Atlanteans were growing? No domesticated crops can be traced back farther than the early Holocene. And you maintain that your Sundaland Atlantis was only the latest in series of vanished high civilizations—where is a shred of credible archaeological evidence for any of them?

    Enough, already. I have spent the last couple of months poring obsessively over reports on the sequence of events in 2010-2016, and here is my opinion on your approach to Gunung Padang:

    First: contrary to your claims of scientific detachment, your agenda from at least 2010 onwards was to find support for an advanced pre-Holocene civilization, the glorious Nuswantara which the rest of the world knows as Atlantis. It is clear that you were aware of Oppenheimer and Santos by late 2010 at the very latest, and approved of their message.

    Second: You did not, despite your protestations, do a blind investigation of Sadahurip and other sites. I think you followed in the footsteps of Turangga Seta to Sadahurip and other sites, and duly found the pyramids you were hoping for. And then you conveniently forgot about Turangga Seta.

    Third: I’d suggest that Sadahurip was quietly dropped from the narrative because you could not carry on denying it was a natural formation. And yet, your evidence for it being a pyramid involved exactly the same kind of remote-sensing data that you used to declare G. Padang an artificial construction. Which means, in turn, that your confident interpretations of the patterning under G. Padang might be on the same level of bias and/or wishful thinking, and similarly unreliable. [“Unreliable” is the polite word.]

    Fourth: You’re enjoying being a hero to the pseuds. And as far as I’m concerned, Danny, they’re welcome to you.

    Category: FeaturedScienceSkepticism

    Article by: Rebecca Bradley

    One Pingback/Trackback

    10 comments

    1. Excellent, Rebecca. Opportunists like Hilman, Hancock and the rest of these pseudo-scientists should be shown for what they really are; fame hungry liars. Oh, and the money they make out of their fiction does no harm either. Your detailed time-line of events in this case neatly shows the way “facts” are manufactured to ensure that they meet with their original hypothesis, regardless of how outlandish it may be. Who needs well conducted science when there’s money to be made.

    2. Dear Rebecca,
      Wow, you are now drawing many false information, and thus making lots of false accusations here. I am very disappointed of your latest article. Nonetheless, I admire your persistent in digging information for month just to find all negative ingredients for your story. Please try using a positive eye glass in finding the truth about other people works. You should separate the real story that (really) comes from me or my research team with those stories from other people including even from Andi Arief, who help organized the research. Below, please allow me to respond to your narrative.
      1. I have never stated in public or any mass media that other hills or mounds including Sadahurip and Lalakon are man-made mound or pyramids. Perhaps, Andi Arief did say so in mass media without my consent. I and Dr. Andang Bachtiar did survey Lalakon and Sadahurip Mound for a couple days with Turangga Seta but had strongly warned them from the beginning not to disclose any result from our survey to public, but they betrayed us. Later, when I and Andang declare in mass media that Lalakon and Sadahurip mounds are not pyramids (after we study/survey it more intensively), some people of Turangga Seta mad at us accusing that we are hiding the truth… LOL. We had never surveyed any other mound beside Lalakon and Sadahurip. So you are making a wrong accusation here. Are you not capable of filtering the information out of the internet or you just did it on purpose?
      2. You said that TTRM conducted a daft scheme to invite 500 hundreds untrained volunteers to excavate Gunung Padang? Wow…how the hell you got this false accusation?
      3. Yes, the national team of research and management of Gunung Padang was supposed to replace and continue TTRM activities in Gunung Padang. I am not just a member in this national team but the vice chairman (for the head of geological working group). Dr. Ali Akbar (the lead archeologist of TTRM) also became the vice chairman of the national team (for the head of archeological working group). Unfortunately, this national team has not been activated since the change in the Indonesian Government.
      4. It is good that you recognize Stephen Oppenheimer works about the Out of Sundaland theory = as an alternative to the Out of Taiwan (OOT) Theory from Bellwood. In fact, there is another alternative theory to OOT right from the beginning; It is called is the NUSANTAO (NMTCN) theory from Wilhelm Solheim; Both Nusantao and OOT stories are equally strong. Though, Oppenheimer study support Nusantao. Oddly enough, Nusantao and Oppenheimer theory are still not as popular as OOT (like you said). I don’t understand why. Many new evidence seems to support Nusantao and Oppenheimer, not OOT, for example like the new evidence (publish in Science) that confirm the first arrival of the human ancestors in Sumatra Indonesia is about 60 Ka (not 5Ka like OOT suggested), or latest finding of Cave Painting in Maros, Sulawesi that dated back to 45 Ka. Anyway, it least you said that Oppenheimer theory is respectable. I think if Stephen Oppenheimer ever said the “A” world in his book (Eden in the East) you may also called him the pseudo scientist, right? Stephen is well aware of this Atlantis phobia among scientists. I think you too believe that Atlantis story is bullshit, right? So did I, until I read Timiaeus and Critias very carefully… then I was amazed by after reading it. This is perhaps the only clear ancient manuscript that talks about advanced civilizations before Holocene. Have you read Timiaeus and Critias?
      5. You are accusing me of enjoying being a hero for a pseud? Wow, I think you are now enjoying becomes sarcastic. Did you notice that I rarely publish anything about Gunung Padang or others? Most of the publicity about Gunung Padang and others were not coming out from me or my research team. We are reacted if people saying bad things about us, like you did. I have never try to become fame (because of Gunung Padang) or get any profit of it. In fact, I even spent my own money to study Gunung Padang. Do you know that I am a reputable Earth scientist long before I study Gunung Padang, and I have been always within top 40 Indonesian scientist according to Google Scholar Citations (http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/96) and I also have won few prestigious scientific awards (sorry I has to brag a little bit  ). In fact, many of my colleagues think that my research in Gunung Padang could harm my reputation, but I got my principle.
      Please forgive me of being a bit snarky also… Nothing personal, I am just giving back the pleasure.

      with best wishes,
      Danny H. Natawidjaja

      1. Wow, you are now drawing many false information, and thus making lots of false accusations here. I am very disappointed of your latest article.

        That’s okay, Danny. For the moment, we can agree on being mutually disappointed. I’m still responding to your comments on the previous article, but I’ll get back to this one.

    3. Okay, Danny, I finished responding to your comments on the previous post, and have turned my attention to this one. My, you are keeping me busy and out of mischief.

      Wow, you are now drawing many false information, and thus making lots of false accusations here. I am very disappointed of your latest article. Nonetheless, I admire your persistent in digging information for month just to find all negative ingredients for your story. Please try using a positive eye glass in finding the truth about other people works. You should separate the real story that (really) comes from me or my research team with those stories from other people including even from Andi Arief, who help organized the research. Below, please allow me to respond to your narrative.

      I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. You have lost control of the narrative. The reason it took me so long was precisely because I was trying to sort out the grains of truth from the sensational and the frankly stupid, even to the point of asking some Indonesian friends to listen to videos of your presentations. If you have been misquoted or misrepresented in the materials that are publicly available, it is up to you to set the record straight with formal peer-reviewed publication. Until you do that, what do you expect people like me, with a serious interest in examining your claims, to do?

      1. I have never stated in public or any mass media that other hills or mounds including Sadahurip and Lalakon are man-made mound or pyramids. Perhaps, Andi Arief did say so in mass media without my consent.

      So you’re telling us we can’t trust the words of Andi Arief, who set up the team? Interesting. But you do have a record, as I’ve previously pointed out, of throwing your colleagues under the bus when challenged.

      I and Dr. Andang Bachtiar did survey Lalakon and Sadahurip Mound for a couple days with Turangga Seta but had strongly warned them from the beginning not to disclose any result from our survey to public, but they betrayed us.

      I can well understand that you don’t want to be associated with loony-birds like Turrangga Seta or Kang Dicky, but you’ve missed a major point. The timeline strongly suggests you and Andi Arief and Co. shared in the excitement caused by Santos’ and Oppenheimer’s books, and went out primed to find a Sundaland Atlantis. Turangga Seta was riding the same zeitgeist, and the results between you were not pretty.

      Later, when I and Andang declare in mass media that Lalakon and Sadahurip mounds are not pyramids (after we study/survey it more intensively), some people of Turangga Seta mad at us accusing that we are hiding the truth… LOL. We had never surveyed any other mound beside Lalakon and Sadahurip. So you are making a wrong accusation here. Are you not capable of filtering the information out of the internet or you just did it on purpose?

      Sigh. See my first response, above.

      2. You said that TTRM conducted a daft scheme to invite 500 hundreds untrained volunteers to excavate Gunung Padang? Wow…how the hell you got this false accusation?

      I’m talking about Operation Red and White Glory (Penggalian Kemuliaan Merah Dan Putih). Registration was to take place in late April 2013. Volunteers were to be oriented on May 10th, and would spend May 11-12 excavating. The number comes from your archaeologist colleague Ali Akbar, who mentioned a hundred archaeologists and four hundred volunteers – so to that limited extent I was misremembering. Though where Ali Akbar thought he’d find a hundred willing archaeologists, I don’t know; and the thought of five hundred enthusiasts let loose in that limited area for even two days chills me to my archaeologist’s bones.

      3. Yes, the national team of research and management of Gunung Padang was supposed to replace and continue TTRM activities in Gunung Padang. I am not just a member in this national team but the vice chairman (for the head of geological working group). Dr. Ali Akbar (the lead archeologist of TTRM) also became the vice chairman of the national team (for the head of archeological working group). Unfortunately, this national team has not been activated since the change in the Indonesian Government.

      You’re being disingenuous. The new national team was a compromise move, so naturally the TTRM members would continue to be involved, out of political expediency. It was still a shotgun marriage, though, and it seems the desired effect was achieved: to stop TTRM from further messing up the hill.

      4. It is good that you recognize Stephen Oppenheimer works about the Out of Sundaland theory = as an alternative to the Out of Taiwan (OOT) Theory from Bellwood. In fact, there is another alternative theory to OOT right from the beginning; It is called is the NUSANTAO (NMTCN) theory from Wilhelm Solheim; Both Nusantao and OOT stories are equally strong. Though, Oppenheimer study support Nusantao. Oddly enough, Nusantao and Oppenheimer theory are still not as popular as OOT (like you said). I don’t understand why. Many new evidence seems to support Nusantao and Oppenheimer, not OOT, for example like the new evidence (publish in Science) that confirm the first arrival of the human ancestors in Sumatra Indonesia is about 60 Ka (not 5Ka like OOT suggested), or latest finding of Cave Painting in Maros, Sulawesi that dated back to 45 Ka.

      NMTCN is not a new theory; it deals with the diffusion of cultural traits through maritime trade networks, whereas OOT tries to track the movement of populations. They essentially concern different domains of explanation—the diffusion/migration dynamic is a longstanding issue in archaeological theory. Incidentally, NMTCN concerns the Neolithic, from about 5000 BC, long after the flooding of Sundaland and the hypothetical collapse of your hypothetical pre-Holocene civilization, so I don’t know why you consider it relevant.

      Anyway, it least you said that Oppenheimer theory is respectable. I think if Stephen Oppenheimer ever said the “A” world in his book (Eden in the East) you may also called him the pseudo scientist, right?

      True, he didn’t say Sundaland was Atlantis – he said it was the Garden of Eden. And yes, there are aspects of Oppenheimer’s work that I would consider pseudoscholarship.

      Stephen is well aware of this Atlantis phobia among scientists. I think you too believe that Atlantis story is bullshit, right? So did I, until I read Timiaeus and Critias very carefully… then I was amazed by after reading it. This is perhaps the only clear ancient manuscript that talks about advanced civilizations before Holocene. Have you read Timiaeus and Critias?

      No, I do not think the Atlantis story is bullshit, and I do not think Plato was lying. Those are straw man arguments. Is Middle-Earth bullshit? Is Westeros a lie? I think (along with classical scholars, historians, and other archaeologists) that Atlantis was a fiction created by Plato for polemical purposes. And yes, I have read Timaeus and Critias, in full, and probably decades before you did. Tell me, did you read them in full? Do you take the rest of Timaeus, for example, to be as veridical as its teeny mention of Atlantis?

      TO BE CONTINUED

    4. To continue: Danny, you say you read Plato’s Atlantis-related dialogues very carefully. As it happens, I’ve had a look at a paper you wrote, which appears to be a summary of your book Plato Never Lied: Atlantis is in Indonesia. Alas, you did not read carefully enough: several of your crucial “matches”between Sundaland and Plato’s Atlantis are in fact describing the land around ancient Athens.

      You make a big point of Atlantis being described as a peninsula (promontory) coming off a larger continent—but Critias was describing Greece. You make a big point of erosion and catastrophe leaving only the “bones” of the land, which you indentify as the remaining islands of the Indonesian archipelago—but Critias was describing Greece. You make a big point of the land being rich enough to supply a great army—but Critias was describing Greece. This does not sound like careful scholarship to me.

      5. You are accusing me of enjoying being a hero for a pseud? Wow, I think you are now enjoying becomes sarcastic. Did you notice that I rarely publish anything about Gunung Padang or others? Most of the publicity about Gunung Padang and others were not coming out from me or my research team. We are reacted if people saying bad things about us, like you did.

      So you equate legitimate criticism with “saying bad things?” Interesting. Anyway, I will point this out yet again: you made an extraordinary claim that runs counter to the overwhelming preponderance of archaeological evidence. Under such circumstances, it is important for you to get your evidence out in a form that other scholars can meaningfully assess. If your findings have been misrepresented and allowed to run riot, it is your responsibility to set the record straight. Instead, you appear in youtube videos hobnobbing with the likes of Sammy Osmanagic, Andrew Collins, Graham Hancock, Robert Schoch; you participate in a conference of rampant pseudoscholars; you appear on Nature of Reality Radio, sandwiched between Erich von Daniken and a UFO abductee. How comfortable are you in such company?

      I have never try to become fame (because of Gunung Padang) or get any profit of it. In fact, I even spent my own money to study Gunung Padang. Do you know that I am a reputable Earth scientist long before I study Gunung Padang, and I have been always within top 40 Indonesian scientist according to Google Scholar Citations (http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/96) and I also have won few prestigious scientific awards (sorry I has to brag a little bit  ).

      Bully for you. You would not be the first legitimate scientist to engage in pseudoscience when straying outside his or her area of expertise. And I hate to say it, but your little book on Plato’s Atlantis demonstrates nicely how far you’ve gone. For example, you speak favourably of Le Plongeon and Churchward; you say their ideas are only rejected only because they believed in a geologically impossible sunken continent in the middle of the ocean. No, Danny, that is not why their theories are rejected.
      They are rejected because they are either falsfied by the evidence, or ridiculous to start with. The Maya do not predate the pharaohs (Le Plongeon). A continent did not sink when huge underlying gas-filled chambers exploded (Churchward). Lemuria was not an ancient legend, but a 19th-century hypothesis to explain the distribution of certain species between India and Madagascar. Etc. Before you espouse certain theories as fact, and interpret their rejection as evidence of mainstream bias, you really should examine their history.

      In fact, many of my colleagues think that my research in Gunung Padang could harm my reputation, but I got my principle.

      Again, bully for you. And your colleagues are right. Honestly, you should stick to earthquakes.

    5. Dear Rebecca,
      I think nobody will disagree that it is easy for anyone to get lost in the mass-media and internet information. Many truth are hidden in a lot more hoax, and many hoax can becomes like real stories.
      You are saying whether we can trust Andi Arief… What do you mean? He is a politician not a scientist. Even if the journalist got information from the real scientist, their stories often gives wrong impression or false information (intended or unintended). You said that the 500-hundred-untrained-volunteers story comes from Dr Ali Akbar in the news; have you contacted him to confirm it ? You plainly suspect that the national team is a compromised (national) move intended to stop TTRM research in Gunung Padang, why do you think so (negative)? Do you really know the process of how this national team was formed? The national team (for Gunung Padang) was and should be formed based on the Decree of the Indonesian President and the Decree of The Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture. Do you think this National Policy is just a joke to stop the “mighty” TTRM to continue scientific research in Gunung Padang (or “messing up the hill” according to your perspective) ? or to back-up and ensure that the results of TTRM studies shall be continued by much more comprehensive studies at a national-level effort?
      I don’t think you’ll get the real story about Gunung padang just by digging internet stories, particularly if you had made up your mind and just trying to get information that can justify your conclusion or prejudice. You said that I am responsible for making the record straight, but here I am trying to make it straight and you are persistently bending it. So, it is up to you then.
      About the Atlantis..it is a different story, there are lots more to be discussed, but I am confused when you said ” I do not think the Atlantis story is bullshit, and I do not think Plato was lying… (but) that Atlantis was a fiction created by Plato” (remember Plato said in Critias that it is not a fiction..). So, what do you mean? Atlantis is the real story or a fiction(=bullshit) created by Plato for whatever reason 🙂 Well.. if it is then Plato’s fiction story is the real magic. .. how the F… Plato, who live in 400 BC, knows about the flood that had occured in 9600 BC (i.e a scientific data that we knows now from geological record as an extreme sea level rise at the end of Pleistocene ).

      Cheers,
      Danny

    6. I think you should also make a comment about Gobekli Tepe, an advanced huge temple that built in around 11,600 BP… about the time when Athen defeat Atlantis then destroyed Earthquake and GREAT FLOOD… Some people (archeologist) still trying to say that Gobekli Tepe was built by Hunterer and Gatherer (i.e. primitive) community… Phuihhh…seriously?

      1. Well, Danny, you’re making it clearer and clearer how far down the rabbit hole you’ve gone. But in answer to your question, I’m actually planning a post or two on Gobekli Tepe after the current Atlantis series is finished. If you like, I’ll notify you when it’s up.

        Out of curiosity, do you literally believe that a literal Athens literally defeated a literal Atlantis in 11,600 BP? Like, literally?

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *